BTW: It's kind of ironic that the 33-incher that you show only has one set of windows mounted high up on the rim...

Click to expand...

One needs to recall that the windows were just painted on the outside of the 33 inch model, where as the windows had to be cut into the surface of the 11 foot model (and around the internal structure of the model).

I'm thinking it wasn't all that bad an idea to use the underhang/undercut of the outer-rim to carry payload and equipment... you might be able to even fit some escape pods in there...

Click to expand...

There is nearly as much space there as there is for the deck above in that compartment... plenty of room for some cabins (which were designed with lower hanging ceiling elements).

The secondary hull was always the primary location of payload, equipment, manufacturing and machine shops.

But more importantly, the idea of escape pods or life boats has always been a ill suited maritime metaphor added in later Trek but was nonexistent in TOS. Space ships don't sink. There is nothing to sink into, so there is no good reason to leave a ship. So escape pods/life boats are effectively coffins. Jefferies wisely divided the ship into compartments, each able to maintain a habitable environment for an extended period. If something happens so fast that those compartments aren't activated to protect the crew, then there wouldn't have been time for any other possibility either.

The worst case scenario would be the crew needing to get away from the main engines... this is why the primary hull can separate from the rest of the ship.

But the point is, in space you never leave the ship. The life of your ship is the life of you.

BTW: What is the point of having the 10 foot high decks? The decks only go up to about 8 or 8 1/2 feet and then you have those bulkheads. What do those do?

Click to expand...

Are you asking me (a person of the 21st century) that?

We don't know. Maybe that height is needed to keep the artificial gravity from the deck above from causing equilibrium problems for the crew of the deck below.

The reality of the show was that the bulkheads across the corridors kept you from seeing that there was no ceiling so that the existing studio lighting rigs could be used. As for in universe purpose... they were often associated with tubes that crossed the corridors. For all that we saw, there might have been a lot of stuff exposed on the ceilings of the corridor too. And maybe they were there as a reminder not to let anything go above that point or it would fall the the ceiling above (kinda like how kids lose balloons).

Personally, I like puzzles... the harder the puzzle the better. Getting the TOS Enterprise to work as envisioned back during TOS is a great challenge. Sure, there are changes that can be made to make it easier... but that defeats the point for me.

Similarly, there are tons of things that later Trek has attempted to nail down tech wise that I think were a major mistake. Not knowing (and not attempting to limit these things) is one of the most important aspects of keeping Trek timeless. If you remove all of Trek after TOS, and look at TOS by itself, new possibilities open up as the years go by. TOS attempted not to define the technology in use too much and that means that we can apply new ideas to what we saw decade after decade after decade.

I've said this before, but I think it bares repeating... the technology aspects of TOS should be considered as a black box. You don't need to know how it works, only that it works in a logical and predictable way. We live our lives this way right now. Most people have no idea how computers work. They don't know about the solid state physics behind computer chips, or the techniques used for etching smaller and smaller patterns within those chips. Programmers today have no idea about the actual machine code of the computers anymore because they have been given human usable programming languages.

In Star Trek we can make guesses, but we really shouldn't attempt to know what we really can't know. And it was the hubris of those making Trek in the 80's and beyond that they knew what the 23rd and 24th centuries would be like technically that have made those versions of Trek dated sooner than TOS in my eyes. Keeping that mystery going is great and is quite inspirational.

So even though my project is a fan project I hope that by leaving most of this stuff open for later interpretation that people who make Trek will get the point of not filling in too many of those things that really should be left blank.

We could place some of the blame on Franz Joseph and that first set of blueprints. If he hadn't started the ball rolling on the fill-in-the-blanks game, we wouldn't have had Messrs. Sternbach, Probert, Okuda, etc., coming back to "correct" things (I'm not blaming Roddenberry for this one; his desire to distance himself from FJ's works only gave Rick, Andrew, and the rest license to lay down some stuff that I suspect had been bugging them for a while, just like they'd been bugging me, for roughly the same period of time).

Of course, while we're at it, we can pin some of this on Matt Jefferies, since a lot of what Probert and Sternbach laid out was started with Jefferies' Phase II notions, like a very definite central warp core down in the secondary hull that nobody with a working cerebral cortex could ever mistake for the impulse engines up in the saucer.

One needs to recall that the windows were just painted on the outside of the 33 inch model, where as the windows had to be cut into the surface of the 11 foot model (and around the internal structure of the model).

Click to expand...

Regardless the 33-inch model in that respect probably was more realistic.

The internal structure of the model is not necessarily an accurate depiction of the internal structure of the fictitious vessel it is to represent.

There is nearly as much space there as there is for the deck above in that compartment... plenty of room for some cabins (which were designed with lower hanging ceiling elements).

Are the cabins like crew-quarters? I thought those were further in on the saucer...

The secondary hull was always the primary location of payload, equipment, manufacturing and machine shops.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the saucer can seperate and in such case you'd want to have some things with you in that situation...

But more importantly, the idea of escape pods or life boats has always been a ill suited maritime metaphor added in later Trek but was nonexistent in TOS.

Click to expand...

I don't know how bad an idea it is to be able to bail-out of the ship. However you are right that it was never incorporated into the original vessel -- the primary-hull *was* the lifeboat.

Space ships don't sink. There is nothing to sink into, so there is no good reason to leave a ship.

Click to expand...

They don't sink, but they can blow up. And quite spectacularly might I add. Being able to bail out of a mess like that would be useful, but as I said, the saucer was intended to be the lifeboat.

Jefferies wisely divided the ship into compartments, each able to maintain a habitable environment for an extended period.

Click to expand...

Just like the compartments on a modern ship.

If something happens so fast that those compartments aren't activated to protect the crew, then there wouldn't have been time for any other possibility either.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right.

The worst case scenario would be the crew needing to get away from the main engines... this is why the primary hull can separate from the rest of the ship.

Click to expand...

Yup. The saucer is a lifeboat.

But the point is, in space you never leave the ship. The life of your ship is the life of you.

Click to expand...

Well there were shuttlecraft and spacesuits... so there were means to get outside the ship and live. I still think conditions would be better in the ship though.

Are you asking me (a person of the 21st century) that?

Click to expand...

Yup, I am. Pretty bold huh? Keep in mind the model was built in the 20th.

We don't know. Maybe that height is needed to keep the artificial gravity from the deck above from causing equilibrium problems for the crew of the deck below.

Click to expand...

Then how come in Star Trek TMP they weren't there?

The reality of the show was that the bulkheads across the corridors kept you from seeing that there was no ceiling so that the existing studio lighting rigs could be used.

My problem with the balcony-on-the-rim idea is that the window arrangement doesn't look at all unified. As if each window group leads into several different rooms rather than a lounge. I mean, why make such a disorganized window arrangement if they're all leading to a big lounge? They're different sizes and shapes, and not really lined up at all.

The smaller size works ok, but the 1080 size works so much better.

Anyway, as far as the refit goes, I'd make the nacelles round and have a swirling bussard dome on the front of them - ie, make them more TOS-like, and loose the art deco. That's about it.

By it's nature, making the ship slightly bigger makes it easier to get all the components in there without having to comprimise as much - like having a half-deck at the saucer rim. That seems so...strange to me.

Anyway, as far as the refit goes, I'd make the nacelles round and have a swirling bussard dome on the front of them - ie, make them more TOS-like, and loose the art deco. That's about it.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering why so many people would want to retain the cylindrical nacelle and spinning bussard-dome set-up? It made the warp engines look like big giant rocket-engines.

Click to expand...

Different tastes. I like the dynamic look of the TOS nacelles. The swirling energy of the bussards looks more powerful and exciting than the static blue grill.

We could place some of the blame on Franz Joseph and that first set of blueprints. If he hadn't started the ball rolling on the fill-in-the-blanks game, we wouldn't have had Messrs. Sternbach, Probert, Okuda, etc., coming back to "correct" things (I'm not blaming Roddenberry for this one; his desire to distance himself from FJ's works only gave Rick, Andrew, and the rest license to lay down some stuff that I suspect had been bugging them for a while, just like they'd been bugging me, for roughly the same period of time).

Of course, while we're at it, we can pin some of this on Matt Jefferies, since a lot of what Probert and Sternbach laid out was started with Jefferies' Phase II notions, like a very definite central warp core down in the secondary hull that nobody with a working cerebral cortex could ever mistake for the impulse engines up in the saucer.

Click to expand...

You can't blame FJ for the "engineering in the saucer" bit. Roddenberry himself was the one who started that particular debacle, and FJ felt compelled to live with Roddenberry's edict on the matter.

We could place some of the blame on Franz Joseph and that first set of blueprints. If he hadn't started the ball rolling on the fill-in-the-blanks game, we wouldn't have had Messrs. Sternbach, Probert, Okuda, etc., coming back to "correct" things (I'm not blaming Roddenberry for this one; his desire to distance himself from FJ's works only gave Rick, Andrew, and the rest license to lay down some stuff that I suspect had been bugging them for a while, just like they'd been bugging me, for roughly the same period of time).

Of course, while we're at it, we can pin some of this on Matt Jefferies, since a lot of what Probert and Sternbach laid out was started with Jefferies' Phase II notions, like a very definite central warp core down in the secondary hull that nobody with a working cerebral cortex could ever mistake for the impulse engines up in the saucer.

Click to expand...

All true... and it is problem for all of us really. How many people today assume that they know how communicators work because we have cell phones. That is as much an attempt to tie current technology to items as anything done in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

Of course it is one thing for fans to play the how does that work game... I'm just suggesting that people making SciFi should avoid this trap.

CuttingEdge100 said:

The internal structure of the model is not necessarily an accurate depiction of the internal structure of the fictitious vessel it is to represent.

Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting it was... but the model imposed that limitation. Plus the model wasn't originally design to be lit from within. The internal lighting was added later, and there were wires running along the exterior of the model to power those lights.

But the model was what we were given.

Yeah, but the saucer can seperate and in such case you'd want to have some things with you in that situation...

Click to expand...

Some things... sure. But you are already pretty bad off if you are separating the saucer, which is an action of last resort.

Only one time was that alternative brought up in TOS. On the other hand, the Enterprise engines were damaged beyond repair stranding the Enterprise in space for months. For the crew, life went on.

Well there were shuttlecraft and spacesuits... so there were means to get outside the ship and live. I still think conditions would be better in the ship though.

Click to expand...

I hope this is you being facetious... if you really need an explanation of the difference then this conversation will be reaching an end very quickly.

Then how come in Star Trek TMP they weren't there?

Click to expand...

Last I checked, TMP isn't TOS.

But I would point out that the TMP corridors would fit within the existing space for the TOS corridors, so maybe they needed more of that open space for the upgrade.

But TMP is Post-TOS so I really don't care what they did or why.

ancient said:

My problem with the balcony-on-the-rim idea is that the window arrangement doesn't look at all unified. As if each window group leads into several different rooms rather than a lounge. I mean, why make such a disorganized window arrangement if they're all leading to a big lounge? They're different sizes and shapes, and not really lined up at all.

Click to expand...

Originally there were only a row of (painted on) windows in those locations. The additional lower window and miscellaneous port holes (if they are also windows) were added to the model later to increase the detailing.

I've already decided to do the ship's interior in the pilot version, and consider additional modifications (to the final production version) as things that would have been done with some other justification in mind.

Why add the lower window? Maybe for dignitaries to get a better view out of the ship. Why add the port holes? Maybe they are sensors rather than port holes. After thought modifications to pre-existing designs rarely look clean and organized.

The smaller size works ok, but the 1080 size works so much better.

Click to expand...

I don't begrudge those who wish to make it easier for themselves. But I'm not sure it solves the problem of the placement of these windows. As long as you are changing the ship's dimensions, changing their positions isn't going to make that much more difference either. As CuttingEdge100 suggested, just move them a little.

By it's nature, making the ship slightly bigger makes it easier to get all the components in there without having to comprimise as much - like having a half-deck at the saucer rim. That seems so...strange to me.

Click to expand...

Well, I never suggested a half-deck, so that idea seems strange to me too. Fortunately the rim is a little more than 21 feet thick in my last study of the 11 foot model's primary hull (apparently no one actually measures anything I put up), so the deck height on the rim of deck 6 isn't drastically different from anywhere else.

CuttingEdge100 said:

ancient said:

My problem with the balcony-on-the-rim idea is that the window arrangement doesn't look at all unified.

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree.

Click to expand...

Which is why it is great that everyone can do their own designs.

Originally I was going to put nothing there at all... and then I realized that nothing there at all was the most workable solution, so I put the lounge (an open space) there.

But I'd be happy to entertain any ideas for a solution that doesn't require changing the dimensions of the ship or moving the position of those windows. Anyone up for that challenge?

Oh you mean the TMP design. From what I remember there were rectangular windows and then two smaller circular windows on the ends.

That is not random.

By it's nature, making the ship slightly bigger makes it easier to get all the components in there without having to comprimise as much - like having a half-deck at the saucer rim. That seems so...strange to me.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean.

I'm not entirely sure exactly which to settle on though.

-On one hand I was told the Enterprise model was originally to be 540 feet and was then doubled in size which would confirm 1,080.

-On the other hand Matt Jeffries stated outright that the ship was 947 feet, and according to Mr. Shaw, the markings on the hull which were used by a fan to confirm the 1,080 feet length only apparently counted if the engineering hull had the dome on the front as in the earliest of Matt Jeffries' sketches.

Different tastes. I like the dynamic look of the TOS nacelles. The swirling energy of the bussards looks more powerful and exciting than the static blue grill.

Click to expand...

Blue grill? The grille was black if I recall unless you mean blue as in "blue steel" or something.

Regarding the idea I had for the rectangular nacelles with the gray smooth nacelle front-caps -- I had considered having them glow while at warp (like how the shuttle glows on re-entry) and stop glowing sublight.

Oh you mean the TMP design. From what I remember there were rectangular windows and then two smaller circular windows on the ends.

That is not random.

Click to expand...

Huh? No, I'm talking about the TOS ship. I don't understand your confusion. The TOS rim windows are pretty random collections of circles and squares with no real pattern.

By it's nature, making the ship slightly bigger makes it easier to get all the components in there without having to comprimise as much - like having a half-deck at the saucer rim. That seems so...strange to me.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean.

I'm not entirely sure exactly which to settle on though.

-On one hand I was told the Enterprise model was originally to be 540 feet and was then doubled in size which would confirm 1,080.

-On the other hand Matt Jeffries stated outright that the ship was 947 feet, and according to Mr. Shaw, the markings on the hull which were used by a fan to confirm the 1,080 feet length only apparently counted if the engineering hull had the dome on the front as in the earliest of Matt Jeffries' sketches.

Click to expand...

Yes, well, considering the number of slightly different sketches MJ did, and the fact that the diagram marked as '947 feet' was proportioned differently than the 11 foot model, I tend to just make the ship whatever logical length/size I please.

I tend to follow the 11 foot series model. Not The 3 ft model, which was somewhat different, and not the MJ diagrams, which were, again, somewhat different. This is a personal choice. Others like the 3-footer/MJ drawing/pilot version better.

Heck, some people like the FJ version best, which is also shaped slightly differently than the rest.

Different tastes. I like the dynamic look of the TOS nacelles. The swirling energy of the bussards looks more powerful and exciting than the static blue grill.

Click to expand...

Blue grill? The grille was black if I recall unless you mean blue as in "blue steel" or something.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the inner side grills, of course. The art deco front-ends, were another element I would rather not have.

Different tastes. I like the dynamic look of the TOS nacelles. The swirling energy of the bussards looks more powerful and exciting than the static blue grill.

Click to expand...

Blue grill? The grille was black if I recall unless you mean blue as in "blue steel" or something.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the inner side grills, of course. The art deco front-ends, were another element I would rather not have.

Click to expand...

Actually, in TMP, the colors were never "bright primary colors" like TNG gave us. In my favorite image of the TMP ship (a high-resolution poster giving a SPECTACULAR view of the ship from aft-port, below) the lighting on the nacelle inner grills was actually PINK...

Yeah depends on the angle you look at the grilles at. From the top they're purplish, from the front/bottom they're pinkish purple, from level they're blue

Click to expand...

Did you know the reason for that? This is anecdotal... ie, I can't give a source, I just remember reading it SOMEPLACE. But I'm confident, even if I'm not able to provide my source, that the source was legit.

There's a die used in inspection of aluminum castings which is purple in color. The inboard and outboard grills of the nacelles were made from machined aluminum, and were treated with this. I believe that the "slot fill" clear material (probably plexiglass) was in-place at the time, and the whole thing was coated, internally, with this inspection dye.

I'm wondering if it's only me or does it looks like JJ Abrams, when he Re-Imagined the Enterprise somehow took every single bad characteristic of the TOS and TMP Enterprises then accentuated them as much as he could physically, then warped, bent, and distorted various design characteristics into curvier shapes only for the sake of being curvier under the impression that if it's curvier it automatically is better?

I'm wondering if it's only me or does it looks like JJ Abrams, when he Re-Imagined the Enterprise somehow took every single bad characteristic of the TOS and TMP Enterprises then accentuated them as much as he could physically, then warped, bent, and distorted various design characteristics into curvier shapes only for the sake of being curvier under the impression that if it's curvier it automatically is better?

Click to expand...

While I would hesitate to claim that it was INTENTIONAL, I'd have to agree that, whatever the intention, that's how it comes across to me.

I just think that everyone has their own strengths, and their own weaknesses. And problems come up when someone who has strengths in one area but not in another ends up in a situation of authority, where they are able to exercise power over both areas.

This movie may well end up being very well-acted and very entertaining, and may even fit (if you ignore the visual) with the Star Trek we all know (alternative timelines and the potential for a "reset button").

It's really only the visual design, so far, that makes me wanna retch.

I'm wondering if it's only me or does it looks like JJ Abrams, when he Re-Imagined the Enterprise somehow took every single bad characteristic of the TOS and TMP Enterprises then accentuated them as much as he could physically, then warped, bent, and distorted various design characteristics into curvier shapes only for the sake of being curvier under the impression that if it's curvier it automatically is better?

Click to expand...

While I would hesitate to claim that it was INTENTIONAL, I'd have to agree that, whatever the intention, that's how it comes across to me.

I just think that everyone has their own strengths, and their own weaknesses. And problems come up when someone who has strengths in one area but not in another ends up in a situation of authority, where they are able to exercise power over both areas.

This movie may well end up being very well-acted and very entertaining, and may even fit (if you ignore the visual) with the Star Trek we all know (alternative timelines and the potential for a "reset button").

It's really only the visual design, so far, that makes me wanna retch.

Click to expand...

To establish my bona fides, let me state that I would have been perfectly happy with a 99.9% recreation of the original ship, sets, etc. IAMD established conclusively that they all would work just fine.

I'm wondering if it's only me or does it looks like JJ Abrams, when he Re-Imagined the Enterprise somehow took every single bad characteristic of the TOS and TMP Enterprises then accentuated them as much as he could physically, then warped, bent, and distorted various design characteristics into curvier shapes only for the sake of being curvier under the impression that if it's curvier it automatically is better?

Click to expand...

While I would hesitate to claim that it was INTENTIONAL, I'd have to agree that, whatever the intention, that's how it comes across to me.

I just think that everyone has their own strengths, and their own weaknesses. And problems come up when someone who has strengths in one area but not in another ends up in a situation of authority, where they are able to exercise power over both areas.

This movie may well end up being very well-acted and very entertaining, and may even fit (if you ignore the visual) with the Star Trek we all know (alternative timelines and the potential for a "reset button").

It's really only the visual design, so far, that makes me wanna retch.

Click to expand...

To establish my bona fides, let me state that I would have been perfectly happy with a 99.9% recreation of the original ship, sets, etc. IAMD established conclusively that they all would work just fine.

That said, I think hyperbole like the above is counterproductive.

Click to expand...

Oh, c'mon now... you're criticising me for "hyperbole" for a post where I say that, as far as we know, the movie itself may be fine and the only drawback may be the visual side... and then describing the visual side with a smiley-ended line?